Ontario (Environment) v. Quinte-Eco Consultants Inc., 2008 ONCA 630

Endorsement

1In sentencing the appellant, Ronald Carter, for breach of s. 184(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.19, the justice of the peace imposed fines as well as two years of probation. The probation order included a condition restricting the appellant’s ability to work in the environmental business. The justice of the peace did not impose a similar condition on the corporate offender in recognition that the corporation could continue to carry on business with the assistance of the appellant’s son, who was a professional engineer. The condition imposed on the appellant was upheld on appeal; however, the appeal judge reduced the term of probation to one year.

2In this court, the appellant submits that the condition does not address his rehabilitation and is a purely punitive condition that should be struck.

3In our view, Hunter J. did not err in upholding the condition of probation. The justice of the peace was entitled to impose such a condition pursuant to s. 72(3)(c) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, which specifically allows for conditions “appropriate to prevent similar unlawful conduct or to contribute to the rehabilitation of the defendant.”

4We see no error in principle or otherwise regarding inclusion of the condition as a term of probation. In imposing the condition, the justice of the peace noted the appellant as a “strong individual who sees things his way”, who expressed no remorse and who gave no indication that he would do things differently in the future. The appellant did not appear to the justice of the peace to appreciate the seriousness of his non-disclosure of data, which may have resulted in PCB’s affecting the Bay of Quinte.

5In light of these findings, the condition was both rehabilitative in nature and served the purpose of preventing similar unlawful conduct, even though it may have had a punitive consequence.

6Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal except to take into account the effect of stays granted pending appeal. In that regard, the additional considerations in the probationary order are amended to read after “or otherwise” the date of May 2, 2009, which counsel advise achieves the appropriate result.